D&D 5E What is most important to you for 5e?

[FireLance]

Humour aside, there are quite legitimate ways of having the game challenge a player; none of them physical. Puzzles, riddles, etc. all challenge the player to a) think like the character and b) solve them. Social situations can similarly challenge players quite well.

How about the most basic challenge of all: making a competent character? (Seriously, sometimes I think the only difference between challenging the player and challenging the character is whether the challenge is direct or indirect, through the character creation mini-game.)

Taken to extremes, the philosophy of "challenge the player, not the character" raises the question of why you need a character to play in the first place. If the player is the one solving the puzzles and riddles and interacting with the NPCs, then the character really is nothing more than just a collection of combat statistics and magical "I win" buttons.

 

[Lwaxy]

While good adventures are essential in general, they aren't for me, especially as I have 100s of adventures not yet tried and can easily convert them to any system.

What is most important to me is that it gives me plenty of character options without needing hours to go through books of feats and think about skills fitting for a class. I want a logical way to build a PC, so that someone could have grown up as the son of a thief and have thieving skills while still being a paladin (as an example) without the GM needing to invent an extra rule or give everyone else something extra, too. I would like basic PCs to be build in less than an hour so my new players don't need to pick premade PCs or need to rely on others to help them.

And I want battles to handle quick enough so I can arrange an epic battle for the games without it needing 7 + sessions just to get to the BBEG (as it happens right now in one of my epic campaigns).

 

[thecasualoblivion]

To be honest, the most important thing in 5E for me is modernity. The more D&D tries to go forward, break new ground, and improve the brand the more interested I am. The more it is stuck in the past and trying in vain to recapture past glories, the less interested I become.

 

[Emerikol]

To be honest, the most important thing in 5E for me is modernity. The more D&D tries to go forward, break new ground, and improve the brand the more interested I am. The more it is stuck in the past and trying in vain to recapture past glories, the less interested I become.

I like new things as much as anybody. But not all knew things. I don't like new toothaches or new bruises for example.

I'm open to some things but I do think D&D represents it's own genre. I want D&D to at least fall within that genre. (4e did not for me). I'd be happy if WOTC created another fantasy line based upon more "modern" design tropes.

Over the years there have been many games with more "modern" design than D&D. Right now though traditional D&D just keeps winning. So a lot of people want that fantasy flavor. Why would the owner of the #1 franchise (at least until very recently) want to abandon it's position?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I like new things as much as anybody. But not all knew things. I don't like new toothaches or new bruises for example.

I'm open to some things but I do think D&D represents it's own genre. I want D&D to at least fall within that genre. (4e did not for me). I'd be happy if WOTC created another fantasy line based upon more "modern" design tropes.

Over the years there have been many games with more "modern" design than D&D. Right now though traditional D&D just keeps winning. So a lot of people want that fantasy flavor. Why would the owner of the [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] franchise (at least until very recently) want to abandon it's position?

That's an opinion. My contrasting opinion is that not only does 4E fall within the D&D genre, it added some thing to D&D which I'm not willing to accept D&D without in the future.

Adding to my 1st priority of modernity/not being stuck in the past:

1. Real balance, between classes and balance against encounters. Being balanced over an adventuring day of X rounds of combat is NOT balance.
2. Mother may I kept to a minimum, at least as an option.
3. Robust options to play any character option in D&D without being forced to use vancian magic, and robust options as a DM to remove vancian magic from the campaign without leaving unacceptable conceptual holes(like no Wizard class).
4. Continuing 4E's focus on D&D as a strong, class based system as opposed to being undermined by 3E multiclassing or classes being merely packages of abilities from a menu.
5. Characters having multiple something interesting to dos every turn.

 

[Emerikol]

That's an opinion. My contrasting opinion is that not only does 4E fall within the D&D genre, it added some thing to D&D which I'm not willing to accept D&D without in the future.

Adding to my 1st priority of modernity/not being stuck in the past:

1. Real balance, between classes and balance against encounters. Being balanced over an adventuring day of X rounds of combat is NOT balance.
2. Mother may I kept to a minimum, at least as an option.
3. Robust options to play any character option in D&D without being forced to use vancian magic, and robust options as a DM to remove vancian magic from the campaign without leaving unacceptable conceptual holes(like no Wizard class).
4. Continuing 4E's focus on D&D as a strong, class based system as opposed to being undermined by 3E multiclassing or classes being merely packages of abilities from a menu.
5. Characters having multiple something interesting to dos every turn.

I respect your opinion and I think you should play what you like. I do disagree though that 4e is in the tradition of D&D. It's a new thing and it did integrate many modern concepts that have been rejected by many D&D'ers long before 4e appeared.

Why cling to a brand that mostly throughout it's history wasn't a game you enjoyed? I enjoyed all versions until 4e. I suppose if 5e and 6e continued in the vein you prefer then I'd stop thinking D&D is the style of game I like. But 4e lost a lot of players. No one was even close to competing with D&D until 4e. And what's even funnier is that the product that is competing against 4e successfully really is just another version of D&D. Pathfinder to me is far closer to traditional D&D than 4e.

So I'm for a 4e style game. And maybe it would attract some of the 4e players. Unlike you though I don't believe all the 4e players are die hards on all the stuff you care about. Against thats my opinion. I think 5e if it returns to traditional D&D tropes will find itself being a great success.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Why cling to a brand that mostly throughout it's history wasn't a game you enjoyed?

I enjoyed AD&D 2E as being better than the alternatives. I wasn't completely happy with it, and checked out many of the other systems out there in the mid-90s and found that while I had some issues with 2E, I liked the other systems less. The only exception to this was Vampire, which I preferred as a system but didn't scratch the fantasy itch D&D did.

3E I found completely frustrating. I was completely seduced by its promise, and never seriously considered anything else while I was playing it, but it never delivered on that promise being too bogged down in its flaws. I struggled against 3E's flaws trying to achieve the game it promised and never succeeded, giving up after 4E was announced.

 

[Emerikol]

I enjoyed AD&D 2E as being better than the alternatives. I wasn't completely happy with it, and checked out many of the other systems out there in the mid-90s and found that while I had some issues with 2E, I liked the other systems less. The only exception to this was Vampire, which I preferred as a system but didn't scratch the fantasy itch D&D did.

3E I found completely frustrating. I was completely seduced by its promise, and never seriously considered anything else while I was playing it, but it never delivered on that promise being too bogged down in its flaws. I struggled against 3E's flaws trying to achieve the game it promised and never succeeded, giving up after 4E was announced.

What I find kind of ironic is that Pathfinder to me is more D&D than 4e. I wish 4e was Pathfinder and Pathfinder was D&D. I'm not against a game existing that you like. I just hate that the long tradition of D&D with all of it's history is lost in the transition. I don't see that as much of an issue for you. I do wonder if they shouldn't have two versions of d&d. I'm against the basic and/or advanced naming but perhaps something else. I think they could still improve both 3e and 4e (a lot! in both cases) but if they understood their target audience they could focus.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Most important? That it achieves what it sets out to do, and plays well while doing it. That's kind of the minimum for me. After that, then I'll start worrying about whether what it does is something that I want to do more than some alternative fun.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Simple. It needs to deliver the play experiences I have had playing 1st Edition, 3rd Edition OR 4th Edition better than 1st Edition, 3rd Edition or 4th Edition already do. (And better enough that it justifies the costs associated with switching editions.)

Idealy, the end product will deliver the play experiences I have had with 1st Edition, 3rd Edition AND 4th Edition at a reasonable (i.e. $100) price point.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Funny. I hope you jest.

Of course. I don't even have a swimming pool.

The absurdity of having the success of a character's actions determined by the physical prowess of the player is obvious. Less obvious, but equally absurd is using the player's other talents or knowledge as a mechanism for task resolution.

Humour aside, there are quite legitimate ways of having the game challenge a player; none of them physical. Puzzles, riddles, etc. all challenge the player to a) think like the character and b) solve them. Social situations can similarly challenge players quite well.

Cruelty to animals aside, there's no logical difference between using a player's alligator-wrestling skills to resolve his character's battle with a dragon, and using the player's puzzle-solving skills to resolve his characters attempt to activate some ancient artifact. Both rely on the player's ability with an analogous task to resolve the character's success without reference to the characters abilities.

The line between decision and resolution may not always be perfectly clear, but the player should be making the decisions, and the resolutions should be based on the abilities of the character, otherwise, why have character abilities?

 

[Emerikol]

Simple. It needs to deliver the play experiences I have had playing 1st Edition, 3rd Edition OR 4th Edition better than 1st Edition, 3rd Edition or 4th Edition already do. (And better enough that it justifies the costs associated with switching editions.)

Idealy, the end product will deliver the play experiences I have had with 1st Edition, 3rd Edition AND 4th Edition at a reasonable (i.e. $100) price point.

Sensible position. I've never had to have a game be active to be used by me.

I alternate between believing 5e will be bad and I should just write (cobble) my own and thinking 5e will be the most easy to change and most flexible D&D ever. I'm waiting to find out which theory is right.

 

[Emerikol]

Of course. I don't even have a swimming pool.

The absurdity of having the success of a character's actions determined by the physical prowess of the player is obvious. Less obvious, but equally absurd is using the player's other talents or knowledge as a mechanism for task resolution.

I disagree. I have played shooting games online where my character can't fire bullets without a gun. But my own skill at shooting the gun still factors in. So in D&D it's perfectly reasonable to have some parts of the game be the gun and other parts be the player aiming the gun. Otherwise why even play? Just have the DM roll everything and you can stay home and watch tv. Just have him let you know how it turned out.

I think that riddles are no fun if you just make an int check. So I don't. Adding a column of numbers up fast? I allow an int check. It's boring for the player. I think talking in character and roleplaying is fun. I roll a success using diplomacy (or whatever appropriate skill) but I base it upon what the character said. If a players says - 'King you are fat ugly and a bore' then I as DM do not need to roll the diplomacy skill to get a reaction. At least not unless it was said in jest.

I believe a commonsense approach is best. I'm probably middle of the road on all of this. I know guys that wouldn't roll any social skill rolls at all. They'd say I'm rollplaying and not roleplaying. And in some ways they'd be right. But I like skills to a degree. Others would be outraged that I allowed the player to influence things at all and instead I should just call for a roll. To me this would be boring.

Everything doesn't have to be to one extreme or the other.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Sensible position. I've never had to have a game be active to be used by me.

No, it certainly doesn't need to be active to be of use. However, being an actively used game increases its value considerably.

I alternate between believing 5e will be bad and I should just write (cobble) my own and thinking 5e will be the most easy to change and most flexible D&D ever. I'm waiting to find out which theory is right.

I tend to also be of a mixed mind as it comes to Next! (I am including the exclamation point to make the game feel more exciting ). On one hand, I think that we could be seeing a great system coming into place; a system that gives me the tools to build a campaign tailored to the idiosyncrasies of my gaming group. On the other hand, I get the feeling that WotC is trying to compromise in areas that would be better off as optional variants, thereby resulting in no one being happy with the option.

 

[Lwaxy]

That's an opinion. My contrasting opinion is that not only does 4E fall within the D&D genre, it added some thing to D&D which I'm not willing to accept D&D without in the future.

To me, 4e is not Dungeons and Dragons, althrough I took several elements from it for my house rules. Even the 4e players in my groups refer to it as Dwarfs and Dungeons they play it because they like the system not because it has a standard D&D feel. Of course if someone started with 4e it would be different. Then again, I am not really insisting on a totally "standard" D&D feel, new things can be fun.

1. Real balance, between classes and balance against encounters. Being balanced over an adventuring day of X rounds of combat is NOT balance.

4. Continuing 4E's focus on D&D as a strong, class based system as opposed to being undermined by 3E multiclassing or classes being merely packages of abilities from a menu.

And we could discuss ad infinitum about what exactly balance means to who but there already is a thread for that I'm not for balance being enforced by the system, to me it is for the group to find their own balance. Balanced PCs are, too me, bordering on boring.

I'm also not for class based, actually, I'd rather have the option to abandon classes as such and create PCs via backgrounds and other toolkits. As mentioned above. So packages of abilities "from a menu" would work very well for me. Actually, enforcing a strong class based system would probably turn me away.

I could see both options in the game though.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I alternate between believing 5e will be bad and I should just write (cobble) my own and thinking 5e will be the most easy to change and most flexible D&D ever. I'm waiting to find out which theory is right.

They're not really that different. In both cases you're creating your own rule set. The line between a broken system that needs to be fixed and a 'toolkit' system that needs to be customized isn't always that clear. There are those who already view 1e as the latter, rather than the former, for instance.

I disagree. I have played shooting games online where my character can't fire bullets without a gun. But my own skill at shooting the gun still factors in.

Nod. And some LARPs have the players resolving combat with boffers.

The more you bring the attributes of the player into it, the less you're playing a character and the more you're playing yourself. Guess that's probably great for 'immersion,' but it limits the range of characters that you can effectively play.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The more you bring the attributes of the player into it, the less you're playing a character and the more you're playing yourself. Guess that's probably great for 'immersion,' but it limits the range of characters that you can effectively play.

I play RPGs to be someone else for a while. The more I'm playing myself, the more the game lets me down.

 

[Emerikol]

They're not really that different. In both cases you're creating your own rule set. The line between a broken system that needs to be fixed and a 'toolkit' system that needs to be customized isn't always that clear. There are those who already view 1e as the latter, rather than the former, for instance.

Nod. And some LARPs have the players resolving combat with boffers.

Not sure what boffers are but sounds funny.

The more you bring the attributes of the player into it, the less you're playing a character and the more you're playing yourself. Guess that's probably great for 'immersion,' but it limits the range of characters that you can effectively play.

True and it is a balancing game. Obviously I can't work magic. I can't swing a sword and chop down three men either at least not unless they stand very very still. On the other hand, I found speaking for my character to be fun. Again I'm on the fence here. I like for the DM to make social rolls behind the screen and take an honest effort by the player into account. But for me just rolling and not even role playing it out is not fun. I realize this may stand in contradiction to the guy who says - why don't I pretend to swing my sword then. But to me there is a difference. I could definitely play a game where there were no social skills. Not my choice but I could tolerate it. I couldn't play a game where the DM just said roll and that was it.

I DM more than play though. I try to hide what I can from the players mechanically. I never reveal monster hit points but I do say they are looking bloodied etc... Of course they know their own hit points. But I think most people know pretty well how they are doing. I don't even reveal monster names unless the characters know the monster.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not sure what boffers are but sounds funny.

Foam weapons.

True and it is a balancing game. Obviously I can't work magic. I can't swing a sword and chop down three men either at least not unless they stand very very still. On the other hand, I found speaking for my character to be fun. Again I'm on the fence here.

My preference is to describe or (in a social situation) RP the results of a check. I know it builds less of an incentive for the player to really try hard with their portrayal, but I think that's a good thing for a lot of players.

 

[Emerikol]

Foam weapons.

My preference is to describe or (in a social situation) RP the results of a check. I know it builds less of an incentive for the player to really try hard with their portrayal, but I think that's a good thing for a lot of players.

Yeah we just don't see eye to eye on our gaming preferences.

I tend to adjust the DC for a diplomacy check based upon what the PC actually says. You can say something totally insane and I'm not going to have the NPC just go along with it because you have a high diplomacy.